| ment-owned,    commercial firms) was by multinational firms in the mid-1990s while in Malaysia only    10% of private sector investment from multinationals. Foreign firms were    concentrated in the agricultural chemical and livestock sub-sectors; i.e.,    those with the highest growth rates (Pray and Fuglie, 2001).In SSA, only 2% of total agricultural    R&D is conducted by the private sector.3 Almost two-thirds of    the region's private research was done in South Africa. Most firms in SSA    have few research staff with low total spending and they focus on crop    improvement research, often export crops (Beintema and Stads, 2006).4    Similarly as in the Asian region, multinationals and locally owned companies    play a similarly important role. Given the tenuous market realities facing    much of African agriculture, it is unrealistic to expect marked and rapid development    of locally conducted private R&D. Yet there may be substantial potential    for tapping into private agricultural R&D done elsewhere through    creative public-private joint venture arrangements (Osgood, 2006).
 In 2000, total investments in all    sciences conducted by the public and private sectors combined were over $700    billion (in 2000 international prices) (Table 8-4). The regional shares in    the global total differ substantially from the shares in agricultural R&D    spending. Industrialized countries combined accounted for about 80% of total    science and technology (S&T) spending while SSA's share was less than one    percent. There are also considerable differences in the shares of public and    private agricultural R&D spending in total S&T spending. Agricultural    R&D spending in SSA accounted for more than one-third of the region's    total sci-
 3 The private sector does, however, play    a stronger role in funding agricultural research, as opposed to performing    research itself. Many private companies contract government and higher-education    agencies to perform research on their behalf. 4 Examples are    cotton in Zambia and Madagascar and sugar cane in Sudan and Uganda.
 |   | ence spending    while in the other regions in the developing world these shares were considerably    lower (9 to 12%). In the industrialized world spending in agricultural    R&D was only 4% of the total S&T investments. 8.1.1.3    Intensity of researchIn order to    place a country's agricultural R&D efforts in an internationally    comparable context, measures other than absolute levels of expenditures and    numbers of researchers are needed, e.g., the intensity of investments in    agricultural research. The most common research intensity indicator is a    measure of total public agricultural R&D spending as a percentage of    agricultural output (AgGDP).5 The industrialized countries as a    group spent $2.36 on public agricultural R&D for every $100 of    agricultural output in 2000, a large increase over the $1.41 they spent per    $100 of output two decades earlier, but slightly down from the 1991 estimate    of $2.38 (Figure 8-4). This longer-run increase in research intensity is in    stark contrast to the group of developing countries; this group has seen no    measurable growth in the intensity of agricultural research since 1981. In    2000, the developing world spent just 53 cents on agricultural R&D for    every $100 of agricultural output. Agricultural output grew much faster in    the developing countries as a group than in the industrialized countries. As    a result, intensity ratios remained fairly stable for the developing regions    as a group despite overall higher growth rates in agricultural R&D    spending in the developing countries, and the intensity gap between rich and    poor countries has widened over the years. More than half of the    industrialized countries for
 Some exclude    for-profit private agricultural research expenditures when forming this    ratio, presuming that such spending is directed toward input and postharvest    activities that are not reflected in AgGDP. For reasons of consistency with    these other studies, we excluded national and multinational private companies    (but not nonprofit institutions) from the calculated intensity ratios.
 |